Tesla Roadster officially released

  • Thread starter Jim Prower
  • 29 comments
  • 1,475 views

Jim Prower

The Big Blue Ford.
Premium
10,620
gtp_jimprower
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080502/ap_on_hi_te/electric_car.html

LOS ANGELES - It's safe to say Jeremy Snyder gets a charge out of the two-seat Tesla Roadster whenever he pulls one off the lot — and not because it's equipped with an all-electric engine.

As he pulled one of the sleek new automobiles down a side street Thursday and put the pedal to the metal, its lithium-ion battery-powered engine didn't give off sparks. It just emitted a powerful hum, something like a much quieter version of a jet taking off.

"Accelerate pretty good?" asked Snyder, head of client services for Tesla, who knew the answer.

"I call it a turbine sound," he said of the sound. "Because it's an electric motor it's got 100 percent torque all the time. So it just pulls you like when you're taking off in an airplane."

After several years of development, the Roadster — with sleek lines like a Ferrari or Porsche and a sticker price of $109,000 — officially moves from the drawing boards to the market next week when Tesla's first store opens. It's near the University of California, Los Angeles, in the city's toney Westwood neighborhood where Beverly Hills, Brentwood and Hollywood practically intersect.

"Because it's Hollywood and glamorous, this is the flagship store," Snyder said.

The next store is to open in a couple months near Tesla's headquarters in the Silicon Valley city of San Carlos, where the car was developed with venture capital of more than $40 million from such investors as Google Inc. founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. More stores are planned for Chicago, New York and other cities by early next year.

Although a fully loaded model can set a buyer back as much as $124,000, that's still cheap compared with a high-end Ferrari. And its 6,831-cell lithium-ion battery pack gives off no emissions.

The car goes from 0 to 60 mph in just under four seconds and tops out at 125 mph. It goes 225 miles on one charge and can be fully recharged in 3.5 hours, which Tesla officials say should allow most people to drive it to work and back and recharge it at night like a cell phone.

Driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco, however, would require stopping in, say, Fresno and plugging its adapter cord into a motel room wall socket.

Some critics have expressed concerns about the durability and safety of the lithium-ion battery, which weighs about 1,000 pounds, more than a third of the entire weight of the 2,700-pound Roadster, whose body is made up of carbon fiber materials. Tesla officials respond that the car has passed all required safety tests. They say the battery should last for about 100,000 miles of driving.

The company, formed in 2003, is named for inventor Nikola Tesla, an early pioneer in the field of electricity. The people buying its cars so far, said national sales manager Doreen Allen, are celebrities, early adopters, wealthy people and environmentalists.

Tesla officials say Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, actors George Clooney and Kelsey Grammer and musicians Will.i.am and Flea have each ordered a Roadster.

It will be awhile before anyone can walk in and drive a Tesla home off a lot, however.

"Delivery is running about 15 months," Allen said, adding the company was surprised by the demand.

Tesla began taking orders last year for the 600 Roadsters it planned to produce in 2008 and had sold all of them by October, Allen said. The first ones began rolling off the production line six weeks ago, and Allen said all of the 2008 models should be delivered to their owners by March of next year. The first ones should begin going out the door later this month.

Meanwhile, orders are being taken for 2009 models, with plans calling for production of about 1,500 cars.

Eventually Tesla also plans to produce cheaper, family vehicles.

"There's a model in the works right now, a five-passenger sedan that will be styled comparable to the roadster but a lot roomier to accommodate families, and that is slated for 2010," Snyder said.

Let me get this straight. you want me to buy a car that tops out at 125 MPH...for $125,000, which is more than cars that top out at 190MPH (ZR1, GT-R, Viper)...for a soulless, "Green" automobile?

That's $1,000 for every MPH you get. That is loaded, though...how much for the base price?
 
125mph is alright, how it gets there is a worry though. It's a pretty noble car but the price tag is as you pointed out way too steep.
 
The original plan was to garner interest with this first car, and then further develop cheaper, more producible models later on if the Roadster were to be a success. I don't doubt they'll sell well.
 
The original plan was to garner interest with this first car, and then further develop cheaper, more producible models later on if the Roadster were to be a success. I don't doubt they'll sell well.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Sell some cheap ones first, low profit, and if it's popular up the price to normal?
 
It's ALWAYS this way with what I call "Utopian" inventions like this. You always produce the really expensive luxury version, and then try and hit mainstream. in most cases the company dies before anything gets off the ground, but these guys have a solid business case, it looks like, and my worry is that when they hit mainstream, they'll have invested a ton of cash in a new factory and not sell enough to get it back. then again, who knows? perhaps the electric company's prices are cheaper than fuel, and people will clamor for these.

The problem here is that this really is more of a drag car that doesn't appeal to the heart, which is the whole point of a sports car, which is what this is trying to be. While you're doing 0-60 in four seconds, you're topping out at speeds a $30,000 sedan can reach with ease.
 
I doubt any greenies are going to care about the top speed. They're not going to fly to the Nurburgring or the Autobahn, and they're not likely to take it to a race track. Greenies tend to be safety freaks as well. There is no need for them to go much faster.

Not to mention that making the car faster would require better tires, better transmission, better brakes and so on. It could be even more expensive.
 
It may not need better Brakes, (Elise-based), nor Tranny, (direct-drive, I believe), but tires, an likely some Aero and suspension retuning, yeah.
 
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Sell some cheap ones first, low profit, and if it's popular up the price to normal?

Usually a company will come forward with a big model to get interest in the brand before going more mainstream. Alfa is coming here with a bang with the 8C before bringing everything else here.

I doubt any greenies are going to care about the top speed. They're not going to fly to the Nurburgring or the Autobahn, and they're not likely to take it to a race track. Greenies tend to be safety freaks as well. There is no need for them to go much faster.

I don't think this is much of a "greenie" car. It probably won't see much time on the track anyway. And the people buying the cars probably aren't too much into saving the planet either. They're probably just buying it because it's flashy and things.
 
I have an idea, lets use this technology where it SHOULD be used. In a road car that's not designed for sportiness. The way I see it is this...the car is a success in only the capacity that someone's managed to make an emissionless vehicle that can travel a decent distance and can be reletively quick enough for whatever situation AND could actually mean taking a step forward. But, seeing as its a supercar that's taking a step BACK in my opinion. So lets forget about it being in a sports car, or in this case a supercar--lets just put it in a boring hatchback or saloon and be done with it. Sell it for $25-30k and I might even buy one of these bastards. What's the point of this technology if only a handful of people can buy it? Lets get it out there where the average jane or joe can buy it. THAT is the whole POINT of alternative means for powering a vehicle. EPIC FAIL. Plus, this thing is fugly too.

As a technological excerise its brilliant--could of been uber brilliant had it been fairly affordable and in a roadcar that has more than 2 seats and a boot. Everything else is rubbish. I hope it fails.
 
Um, wut?

The "base" Tesla, as I recall, can be had for $90K. Which at least in my opinion is absolutely awesome for what it is... The first true "green" sports car. I mean, lets be honest, its not the fastest and cheapest car in the market that can do what it can do. I can buy a Mustang GT for a third of the price and get better performance.

So what?

The fact of the matter is that the Tesla is absolutely awesome. Its actually fast, "good for the environment," and looks good while doing so. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and thats that. They've already sold out the first lot, and likely the second, and then when they drop the technology into their sedan (which is coming next), it will only get bigger.

Considering what they've done with the resources they have, these people should be getting AWARDS not your hate.
 
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080502/ap_on_hi_te/electric_car.html



Let me get this straight. you want me to buy a car that tops out at 125 MPH...for $125,000, which is more than cars that top out at 190MPH (ZR1, GT-R, Viper)...for a soulless, "Green" automobile?

Fail. Have you ever driven a short wheel base MR car? Let alone over 100 MPH? The thing wants to spin out instantly, and is probably one of the most nerve wracking experiences I've dealt with driving. People that only care about top speed in a car are missing the other 98% of the car. Especially in a car based off the Elise. It's called the driving experience. I could have picked up a Neon SRT-4 for what I paid for my MR-S. Or an E36 M3. Both of which would surely waste the MR-S in a straight line. But the MR-S is far more rewarding to drive.

JCE, do you understand the point of a showcase car? Virtually every new technology is demo'd in expense, high end cars before reaching mass market. V-tec and NSX is a good example. The Tesla is to garner media attention, attention of the wealthy, and a something breaking the typical mold of a "green" car. Though the Tesla was beat by the Tango, producing any all electric car worth anything as a car requires a lot of time, money, and research. Mass production is required, which means a clear market interest has to be proven so a manufacturer will support the car.

Personally, I think the car is brilliant, though not the first high performance green car. I hope it does well in the market, thus bringing the genius that is an electric motor into mainstream cars, and sport variants at a lower price level.

And Kikie, what type of air engine? You mean that fail idea of a compressed air powered engine?
 
*snip* And Kikie, what type of air engine? You mean that fail idea of a compressed air powered engine?
Uuuhh, yeah! :guilty:


Guy Nègre (MDI) an ex-F1 engineer developed this engine. He also developed an air compressor which could be used in an electrical car to charge the battery.

There is also an Australian air engine.

Rotary air engine




:)
 
Uuuhh, yeah! :guilty:


Guy Nègre (MDI) an ex-F1 engineer developed this engine. He also developed an air compressor which could be used in an electrical car to charge the battery.

There is also an Australian air engine.

Rotary air engine




:)

Compressed air engines are not going to solve much of anything.

a 300 LITER tank compressed at the standard 30 MPa yields less energy than a liter of gasoline.

You can see the thread it was heavily discussed in here.
 
So electrical cars FTW?

But batteries can't cope well with cold t°'s!





:)

I personally hope they find a way to perfect hydrogen. If they find a way to keep it as a liquid (unlikely) it will have more energy/Litre than petrol. Plus the only emission is water. Score one :dopey:
 
I personally hope they find a way to perfect hydrogen. If they find a way to keep it as a liquid (unlikely) it will have more energy/Litre than petrol. Plus the only emission is water. Score one :dopey:
Then there's the energy needed to manufacture it.


Is anyone else getting jaded by all these green technologies that have such huge flaws in their use?
 
We're humans, inherently flawed. The way I figure is that we'll never come up with the perfect from of energy, and every one of our energy producing ideas will have to have a tradeoff somewhere.
 
An electrical car does not need coolant and oil, which is another big + for the environment.
 
Well, it makes for an interesting debate that reveals the full story of the car and the people affected by it.

I think a bit of acceleration can be sacrificed for top end, but then, no one would really care... A lovely car, though, with an extraordinary interpretation of an age-old medium.
 
I think it's all great technology, which could all very well see itself into autocross racing and other forms of racing on a technical course.

Pros:
Electric
no emission
great performance until it tops out

Cons:
energy needed to produce it
cost


Here, let's take this scenario. Base model Corvette(still like 440hp) for around 50k. That leaves you at minimun 40,000 worth of gas to put into it BEFORE it equals the lowest trim Tesla. That 40,000 dollars will easily take you more than the 100,000 miles the Tesla garuntees on its batteries. Those batteries will also cost another 5,000 at minimun to replace.

That's 45,000 dollars of gas you could put into a much faster car all for the same price.

Tesla=good idea, but still a failing execution
 
I think it's all great technology, which could all very well see itself into autocross racing and other forms of racing on a technical course.

Pros:
Electric
no emission
great performance until it tops out

Cons:
energy needed to produce it
cost


Here, let's take this scenario. Base model Corvette(still like 440hp) for around 50k. That leaves you at minimun 40,000 worth of gas to put into it BEFORE it equals the lowest trim Tesla. That 40,000 dollars will easily take you more than the 100,000 miles the Tesla garuntees on its batteries. Those batteries will also cost another 5,000 at minimun to replace.

That's 45,000 dollars of gas you could put into a much faster car all for the same price.

Tesla=good idea, but still a failing execution


Quoted for truth! Well thought out post GT90210.👍
 
OMG you get free electricity!?

But yeah I get your point 👍, however no-one is going to buy these for financial reasons.
 
Its more of a "statement car" than anything, much like how the Prius was when it first showed up. Nothing bad about that, its still an awesome car nevertheless.
 
The people who will buy this are not going to be concerned with the performance, they will be all into this environmental stuff...
 
Well... I see it this way.

A person who would buy a Tesla Roadster or even a Venturi Fetish buy either one as a fun car and to make a statement. Honestly... is a Pagani Zonda worth nearly a million bucks more than a Corvette? From a power stand-point, no. But in terms of exclusivity and other qualitative issues, yes.

But honestly... I don't get hybrids... I don't get electrics, either, they're both kind of pointless in terms of return-on-investment unless new battery technologies arise... but you can't hold a car's top speed against it...

Simply put. That small car with no top-end may possibly whip cars with 150-170 mph top ends on the race track. Instant torque. No need for gear changes, lightweight, mid-engined balance. And instant torque from the electric motor would make it even better for bragging rights on the street. Put it up against an exotic at the stoplight, and unless the guy's got "launch control" enabled, that's all she wrote.

Pointless car, but can you declare that it's pointless unless you've driven it? A local mag (friend works there) says the Venturi Fetish was a ton of fun... terribly quick... only problem is people stepping out onto the road in front of you because they can't hear you coming. :lol: And that car tops out at 100 mph. 25 mph lower than the Tesla, because it only has one gear. You can have lots of fun under 100 mph. 150+ is something you can do... well... maybe once in a blue moon on an airfield or the interstate (at the risk of your license)... but wringing the neck of a small car on a canyon road is something you can enjoy nearly every week.

I may not be a believer in the package (batteries = too much weight... I'd like to see this equipped with supercapacitiors, and to come with a recharger pack for racetrack use... :D ) but it sounds like it'd be fun to drive.
 
I think niky is right on several points. How often do ANY of you drive 125mph? How about 100mph? I've been over 100 in my S2000 a few times, but I've only hit 125 a couple times and I have no need to do it again. Getting into the 4 second 0-60 range is hard to achieve. And getting less than $0.05 / mile is unheard of, even in the best hybrids.

If all you're comparing is top speed, then this car was not meant for you, clearly.
 

Latest Posts

Back